Search

In response to the International Commission on Radiological Protection, which lowered the lens equivalent dose limit, Japan lowered the lens dose limit from 150 mSv y -1 to 100 mSv/5 years and 50 mSv y -1 , with this new rule taking effect on 1 April 2021. DOSIRIS ® is a dosimeter that can accurately measure lens dose. Herein, we investigated lens dose in interventional cardiology physicians 1 year before and after the reduction of the lens dose limit using a neck dosimeter and lens dosimeter measurements. With an increase in the number of cases, both personal dose equivalent at 0.07 mm depth [Hp(0.07), neck dosimeter] and personal dose equivalent at 3 mm depth [Hp(3), lens dosimeter] increased for most of the physicians. The Hp(3) of the lens considering the shielding effect of the Pb glasses using lens dosimeter exceeded 20 mSv y -1 for two of the 14 physicians. Protection from radiation dose will become even more important in the future, as these two physicians may experience radiation dose exceeding 100 mSv/5 years. The average dose per procedure increased, but not significantly. There was a strong correlation between the neck dosimeter and lens dosimeter scores, although there was no significant change before and after the lens dose limit was lowered. This correlation was particularly strong for physicians who primarily treated patients. As such, it is possible to infer accurate lens doses from neck doses in physicians who primarily perform diagnostics. However, it is desirable to use a dosimeter that can directly measure Hp(3) because of the high lens dose., (© 2024 Society for Radiological Protection. Published on behalf of SRP by IOP Publishing Limited. All rights, including for text and data mining, AI training, and similar technologies, are reserved.)

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to optimize radiopharmaceutical dosage in single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) nuclear medicine. Therefore, we examined a variable dose (VD) method using body weight as an index in resting myocardial scintigraphy using a 99m Technetium ( 99m Tc) preparation., Methods: In this study, we compared the VD method with the fixed dose (FD) method without a variable by body weight. There were 50 patients using the VD method and 50 patients using the FD method. For the VD method, we set the target average count (counts/pixel) per SPECT view. Using the myocardial average count of the FD method, and the estimated intracorporeal radioactivity at the start of the examination, the dose of the VD method, which varies appropriately depending on the body weight, was calculated., Results: The VD method had less variation in myocardial counting and was closer to the target count than the FD method, and the median dosage decreased., Conclusion: The VD method suggested the possibility of obtaining a count independent of physique and stable image quality, reducing medical and occupational radiation exposure in resting myocardial blood flow scintigraphy.

In recent years, aortic aneurysm treatment with stent graft grafting in the X-ray fluoroscopy is increasing. This is an endovascular therapy, because it is a treatment which includes the risk of radiation damage, having to deal with radiation damage, to know in advance is important. In this study, in order to grasp the trend of exposure stent graft implantation in a hybrid operating room (OR) system, focusing on clinical data (entrance skin dose and fluoroscopy time), was to count the total. In TEVAR and EVAR, fluoroscopy time became 13.40 ± 7.27 minutes, 23.67 ± 11.76 minutes, ESD became 0.87 ± 0.41 mGy, 1.11 ± 0.57 mGy. (fluoroscopy time of EVAR was 2.0 times than TEVAR. DAP of EVAR was 1.2 times than TEVAR.) When using the device, adapted lesions and usage are different. This means that care changes in exposure-related factors. In this study, exposure trends of the stent graft implantation was able to grasp. It can be a helpful way to reduce/optimize the radiation dose in a hybrid OR system.

Objective: Interventional radiology tends to involve long procedures (i.e., long fluoroscopic times). Therefore, radiation protection for interventional radiology staff is an important issue. This study describes the occupational radiation dose for interventional radiology staff, especially nurses, to clarify the present annual dose level for interventional radiology nurses., Materials and Methods: We compared the annual occupational dose (effective dose and dose equivalent) among interventional radiology staff in a hospital where 6606 catheterization procedures are performed annually. The annual occupational doses of 18 physicians, seven nurses, and eight radiologic technologists were recorded using two monitoring badges, one worn over and one under their lead aprons., Results: The annual mean ± SD effective dose (range) to the physicians, nurses, and radiologic technologists using two badges was 3.00 ± 1.50 (0.84-6.17), 1.34 ± 0.55 (0.70-2.20), and 0.60 ± 0.48 (0.02-1.43) mSv/y, respectively. Similarly, the annual mean ± SD dose equivalent range was 19.84 ± 12.45 (7.0-48.5), 4.73 ± 0.72 (3.9-6.2), and 1.30 ± 1.00 (0.2-2.7) mSv/y, respectively. The mean ± SD effective dose for the physicians was 1.02 ± 0.74 and 3.00 ± 1.50 mSv/y for the one- and two-badge methods, respectively (p < 0.001). Similarly, the mean ± SD effective dose for the nurses (p = 0.186) and radiologic technologists (p = 0.726) tended to be lower using the one-badge method., Conclusion: The annual occupational dose for interventional radiology staff was in the order physicians > nurses > radiologic technologists. The occupational dose determined using one badge under the apron was far lower than the dose obtained with two badges in both physicians and nonphysicians. To evaluate the occupational dose correctly, we recommend use of two monitoring badges to evaluate interventional radiology nurses as well as physicians.